November 19th, 2013


Фильтруйте базар

Like many consumers who have had a bad experience, Jen Palmer wrote a review online in 2008 after the Christmas presents her husband ordered from never arrived. Years later, thanks to her online review, the couple is facing a damaged credit score and a $3,500 fine.

When the items Palmer's husband ordered in 2008 didn't ship within 30 days, the PayPal transaction was automatically canceled. However, Palmer still left a review on RipoffReport in early 2009 detailing her experiences with trying to reach the company's customer service:

A company like yours, while catering to geeks, should first and foremost understand that while electronic communication is nice, there are inevitably times that human contact is necessary. At this point, the only thing I can determine is that your customer service department, in fact, your whole company, is so busy returning voicemails from disgruntled customers that they are inable to take live calls of any kind.

But three years later, Palmer's husband received an email from demanding that the post be taken off RipOffReport or the couple would face a fine. Apparently, Palmer violated a non-disparagement agreement hidden within the terms of sale on the Kleargear website. The clause read:

"In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts, its reputation, products, services, management or employees."

According to KUTV, the clause (it's no longer on the website) also said that if the consumer violates the contract "they will have 72 hours to remove your post or face a $3500 fine. If that fine is not paid, the delinquency will be reported to the nation's credit bureaus."


Люди решили написать плохое ревью на непонравившуюся услугу и получили 3500 штрафа за это. Мелким шрифтом было прописано в онлайн соглашении. Фильтруй базар, как говорится

Кто здесь власть?

Environmental activist Bill Talen, more commonly known as Reverend Billy, could be facing up to a year in prison for organizing a musical protest that brought singing, dancing activists to a Manhattan JP Morgan Chase Bank last month — all dressed as frogs.
The protesters, all members of Talen’s Stop Shopping Choir, went up to the bank’s third floor where the wealth management offices for private clients are located and burst into song. They handed out information sheets about the impact of Chase investments on the environment to bank customers and employees while Talen gave a sermon about climate change. The choir members were dressed as the Central American golden frog, a species now extinct as the result of climate change.
Talen and the choir’s musical director, Nehemiah Luckett, were arrested moments later on a subway platform.
Last week, they were charged with riot in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, unlawful assembly and two counts of disorderly conduct — charges that carry up to a year in prison. The assistant district attorney described the protest as a “criminal stunt.”
Talen told environmental news website Grist that he was aware the trial would be an uphill battle.
“Our researchers have it that JP Morgan Chase is one of the top financiers of climate change disruption in the world, and we’re handing out that information and that is a very sensitive thing,” he said. “I think that we’re in dicey territory here because JP Morgan Chase is basically the government of New York.”
A petition on requesting that Dictrict Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. drop all charges against Luckett and Talen is seeking 10,000 signatures. As of Sunday afternoon it had more than 3,500.
The trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 9.

Реверент Билли, активист по защите природы, попал под суд и ему грозит год тюрьмы. Он вместе со своими сторонниками проник в здание ДжПи Морган-Чейза (банк) и спел там песенку, протестуя против инвестиций банка во всякие злобные антиприродные активы. Чуваков повязали и теперь им вменяются (только задумайтесь!): 1. Бунт второй степени; 2. Угрозы третей степени; 3. Незаконное собрание (привет 31 статья конституции!); 4. Два случая мелкого хулиганства. Сам ревент Билли думает, что в тюрьму их таки посадят, так как прокомментировал обвинения так: "Мы в серьезных неприятностях, так как JP Morgan Chase фактически является правительством Нью Йорка". Местный народ сопротивляется, уже 3500 человек подписали петицию против беспредела.
Сравните с Арктик Санрайз.

И еще на тему законности и правопорядка

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would not review a ruling by the secretive intelligence court that gave the government access to records kept by Verizon Communications Inc on millions of telephone calls.
The long-shot case was brought to the high court by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest research organization. It was the first time the high-profile issue has come before the justices since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden began in June to leak secret documents detailing American surveillance programs.
The NSA used records like those provided by Verizon as part of the spy agency's counterterrorism surveillance activities.
The court rejected the case in a one-sentence order.
The Obama administration argued in papers presented to the court that under existing law, only the U.S. government or Verizon itself could challenge a ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Коротко: Верховный Суд США отказал буквально в одном предложении в рассмотрении дела по нелегальной прослушке граждан, признав тем самым прерогативу некоего секретного суда (да-да, СЕКРЕТНОГО СУДА!!!) поступать так, как там сочтут нужным. Администрация Обамы указала на то, что претензии могут выдвигать или Верайзон, который предоставил прослушку правительству, или само правительство, а не какие-то там убогие граждане.
Выводы делайте сами, на что могут повлиять выборы, а на что - в пешое эротическое путешествие.


Опасайтесь ходить мимо негров даже ВНЕ гетто.
Это как бы намек на то, что не всегда можно защититься оружием, если атака непровоцирована и совершенно внезапна.

Интересная статистика

Originally posted by gornal at Про авиакатастрофы
Скомпоновал две статьи из википедии (статистика авиаперевозок, авиакатастрофы и одно число пришлось в поисковике искать) в единую таблицу. Выводы делать не буду.

Гражданская авиация в России.

Пассажиропоток (в миллионах) Жертвы Скользящее среднее жертв Скользящее среднее жертв на миллион пассажиров
1991 118
1992 62,6 84 67 1,1
1993 41,5 0 95 2,3
1994 33,8 200 99 2,9
1995 32,1 98 146 4,6
1996 28,2 141 96 3,4
1997 26,2 50 64 2,4
1998 23,3 0 17 0,7
1999 22,4 0 0 0,0
2000 23 0 70 3,0
2001 26,5 210 101 3,8
2002 28 93 101 3,6
2003 30,9 0 61 2,0
2004 35,2 90 39 1,1
2005 36,5 28 138 3,8
2006 39,6 295 110 2,8
2007 45,1 6 130 2,9
2008 49,8 88 31 0,6
2009 45,1 0 34 0,7
2010 56,9 13 39 0,7
2011 64,1 104 54 0,8
2012 74 46 67 0,9
2013 75 51 49 0,6

(Только самолеты, только гражданские перевозки, без учета грузовых, тренировочных, спортивных, военных, только РФ).

Иллюстрация того, что такое одна жертва на миллион: это опасность погибнуть в ДТП за два дня жизни (не обязательно вождения!) в РФ.